It says Winchester so that makes it desirable? It's one of a series of late-'60s Winnies (including 150/250; 190/290) that largely epitomize why Winchester went down the tubes. As it happens I have a 290 and my brother has a 270; they basically have the same chamber, just different actions...and neither is worth a flip. P.S.-We've both had them since 1968 when Dad gave them to us for Christmas; it's worth noting as an aside that Dad was a Winchester rep in the glory days and never got the post-'64 memo.

It says Winchester so that makes it desirable? It's one of a series of late-'60s Winnies (including 150/250; 190/290) that largely epitomize why Winchester went down the tubes. As it happens I have a 290 and my brother has a 270; they basically have the same chamber, just different actions...and neither is worth a flip. P.S.-We've both had them since 1968 when Dad gave them to us for Christmas; it's worth noting as an aside that Dad was a Winchester rep in the glory days and never got the post-'64 memo.

My buddy got a 290 at Christmas, 1966 or 67. It was/is a great gun with absolutely zero problems. I liked his so much that I bought one in 1971, and still shout it to this day. What a wonderful gun!! My son bought a 250 and it performs flawlessly. I also have a 490 that is a thing of beauty. I won't talk about all the other Winchesters we have as we're discussing only the .22.The only problem I ever had with my 290 is when I used Remington Thunder-duds for ammo. What junk!! Maybe you don't keep your .22's clean?? .22 ammo is filthy, and you must keep the action clean or you're going to see problems.

.22hustler: I'm delighted to see your favorable comments about the 290s you and your buddy have. Be assured I'm anal about weapon cleanliness. My 290 is virtually as clean as it was the day it was a new Christmas present in 1968. And we've both had the same experiences with ThunderFarts (I don't use them in any of my .22s). I just don't think the quality of workmanship that went into the 290 comes anywhere close to what's in my models 61 and 63 from the Golden Age, or even my mid-70s vintage 9422. My 290 is not particularly accurate, regardless of what ammo...and I have it decently scoped. Plus, the only unintended discharge of my life was with it; the magazine tube had been removed, the action repeatedly cycled and visually inspected...and it went boom (muzzle was pointed downrange). Had a round stuck in the tube magazine? I'll never know but I'm twice as careful with it now. It's an OK plinker but I wouldn't take it to any marksmanship meets.

.22hustler: I'm delighted to see your favorable comments about the 290s you and your buddy have. Be assured I'm anal about weapon cleanliness. My 290 is virtually as clean as it was the day it was a new Christmas present in 1968. And we've both had the same experiences with ThunderFarts (I don't use them in any of my .22s). I just don't think the quality of workmanship that went into the 290 comes anywhere close to what's in my models 61 and 63 from the Golden Age, or even my mid-70s vintage 9422. My 290 is not particularly accurate, regardless of what ammo...and I have it decently scoped. Plus, the only unintended discharge of my life was with it; the magazine tube had been removed, the action repeatedly cycled and visually inspected...and it went boom (muzzle was pointed downrange). Had a round stuck in the tube magazine? I'll never know but I'm twice as careful with it now. It's an OK plinker but I wouldn't take it to any marksmanship meets.

You're a lot like me; anal about cleanliness,lol. I've had great luck with all my Winchesters, but I agree with you, I would take something else to a match. My buddy has a Ruger M-77, bolt action in .22, amd MAN, what a gun!!! Accuracy, good looks, and great feel. If I could afford one, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.I also have good scopes on our .22's. We have all Bushnell's, 3X9, on them. Good working scope, zero problems, and they don't break the bank.